l00l00l0l000l00l0000 l00 l00l0000 l l 00 l00 l0l000l00 l0000l00 l00 l0000ll 00 l00 l0 l000l00l0000l00 l00l0000ll00l00 l0 l000l0
Author and Designer: Debra Bristol
University of Colorado DenverCollege of Architecture and PlanningUrban and Regional Planning Graduate ProgramSpring 2015
Spring 2015 3
Table of ContentsIntroduction 4Form-based Codes 10Zoning and Affordable Housing 18Case Studies 24 Montgomery County 26 City of Boulder 27 City of Montgomery 28 City of Miami 28 City of Denver 29 Arlington County 30Analysis 32References 38Appendix 40
l00l00l0l000l00l0000 l00 l00l0000 l l 00 l00 l0l000l00 l0000l00 l00 l0000ll 00 l00 l0 l000l00l0000l00 l00l0000ll00l00 l0 l000l0
Introduction
Spring 2015 5
The topic of affordable housing in Colorado, especially along the Front Range, has become a progressively more urgent issue as housing prices have increased exponentially over the last several years. More and more Coloradoans are feeling the pressure as the high cost of living continues to go up, especially in the metropolitan region. In the Denver Metro region alone average rent prices increased by $300 during the later half of 2014 (Estabrook 2014). The ability for the region to provide affordable housing that meets current housing demands has faced several obstacles, from both
local/state policies, and the housing market, affecting housing availability and affordability (Murray 2014). Juris-dictions are now looking for innova-tive ways of closing the gap caused by the region’s affordable housing short-age. One innovation is the use of form-based codes. Communities across the country are using form-based codes as an additional tool to encourage the de-velopment of affordable housing. This paper aims to provide reliable infor-mation to those who may be looking at form-based codes as an alternative to conventional zoning as a method of promoting affordable housing.
6 Spring 2015
Housing Colorado is a statewide housing and educational networking services organization with over 3,000 members. Housing Colorado provides tools to local agencies and organiza-tions as they look to learn or work with affordable housing. Their mem-ber library consists of resources on development, property management, finance, home ownership, service cre-
ation and professional development. Housing Colorado’s priorities are sup-porting policies that increase funding and tools to aid in the development of affordable housing. The organization also promotes policies that target the diverse needs of affordable housing to “stabilize communities,” helping to re-duce affordable housing development barriers (Housing Colorado 2014).
The goal of this project is to act as an affordable housing resource as part of Housing Colorado’s online library, providing basic research and analysis for jurisdictions to reference when considering zoning alternatives and affordable housing tools. Tools and strategies mentioned are for use of jurisdictions that must look to other methods beyond federal and local funding. In addition, this resource provides information for identifying possible affordable housing barriers within their existing community con-text and introduces a range of form-based code principles that may aid in the promotion of affordable housing. This is accomplished by presenting a well-rounded summary of affordable housing incentives and policies that
may or may not be promoted by form-based codes depending on a commu-nity’s current housing stock context. This project is organized into four sections: the first section focuses on conventional zoning and form-based codes; the second section presents the relationship between zoning and affordable housing; the third sum-marizes six case study cities and/or counties; the fourth section integrates information gained through a series of professional interviews with research from prior sections to analysis the impact form-based codes may have on affordable housing potential. The ap-pendix contains a sample of technical language found both in inclusionary housing ordinances and form-based codes.
The Client
The Project
Spring 2015 7
Affordable housing
Affordable housing can refer to two different concepts. The first concept is the plain meaning of the words: low costs, rents, and taxes necessary to acquire housing, whether that housing is provided by the private market or through public programs. In its other meaning, Affordable Housing refers to important government programs that directly assist some residents with housing costs. (AURA, Austin City)
New Urbanism
An urban design movement which promotes walkable neighborhoods containing a range of housing and job types. It arose in the United States in the early 1980s, and has gradually influenced many aspects of real estate development, urban planning, and municipal land-use strategies.
Inclusionary Policy
Municipal and county planning policy and ordinances that require a dedicat-ed percentage of new construction to be affordable, as defined by HUD,d to people with low to moderate incomes
Smart Growth
A method of development that sup-ports choice and opportunity by promoting efficient and sustainable land development, incorporates redevelopment patterns that optimize prior infrastructure investments, and consumes less land that is otherwise available for agriculture, open space, natural systems, and rural lifestyles.
Density
The number of people inhabiting an urbanized area or the size of a building on a given lot/parcel. Density can be measured in various degrees and also may come with a level of misconcep-tion.
Public Realm
Includes all exterior places, linkages and built form elements that are physi-cally and/or visually accessible regard-less of ownership. These elements can include, but are not limited to, streets, pedestrian ways, bikeways, bridges, plazas, nodes, squares, transportation infrastructure, gateways, parks, water-fronts, natural features, view corridors/sheds, landmarks and building form.l
Key Terms
8 Spring 2015
A critical phase in attempting to answer the question of whether or not form based codes can promote affordable housing is defining what is affordable. This definition can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; what is affordable in an urban neigh-borhood may not be in a suburban neighborhood. A major component for developing solutions to address a community’s housing issues is defin-ing an accurate method of measuring housing need and affordability (O’Dell et al. 2009). Part of defining affordable housing is determining a community’s housing needs. Housing need is found to have three components: housing affordability, housing condition, and overcrowding (O’Dell et al. 2009). The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), has defined affordable housing as 30% or less of a household’s average median income (AMI) dedicated to housing costs. Any percentage beyond 30% is considered “cost burdened”. This percentage is applied to a general population without much consider-ation to other factors within a specific community, including concentration, socio-economic factors, and the built environment. Thirty percent AMI as a benchmark may also provide issues when the “living variability across jurisdictions is taken into account” (O’Dell et al. 2009). To overcome this particular issue I interviewed several architects and developers who com-pleted affordable housing projects in Colorado within the last ten years to determine an appropriate AMI most relevant to Colorado. In general, affordable housing is built to the 60% AMI or higher in Colorado because additional federal and state subsidizes are required when trying to build for 50% AMI or below. While the impor-tance of building for affordable hous-ing for extremely low-income should be emphasized, based on professional
Methodologyinterviews and research, for this project “affordable” will be considered 40%-60% AMI.
For a resource to successfully describe form-based code’s potential/effective-ness for promoting affordable housing (as defined by that jurisdiction) the concept and evolution of form-based codes should be explained. This was done by researching the three most common types of form-based codes and identifying the contexts to which they are being applied. After determin-ing specific indicators of form-based code principles that have evolved over time, I was able to design an effective research strategy.
With little research exclusively focused on form-based codes and their abil-ity to promote affordable housing, I created a research strategy that illus-trated possible connections between form-based code principles and the realities of affordable housing develop-ment. The initial step was conducting research on three different versions of form-based codes and familiarizing myself with existing affordable housing development funding and incentives.
The second step in my methodology was identifying and categorizing doc-umented affordable housing barriers connected with zoning practices. Next, I interviewed experts in either form-based codes and/or affordable housing, with specific experience in Colorado. After the interviewing of several pro-fessionals, I conducted six case studies of municipalities currently using form-based codes with or without additional affordable housing ordinances. I then evaluated common form-based code principles currently in practice to determine whether or not they could eliminate the identified zoning barriers or regulations preventing affordable housing development. I conclude with
a focus on the relationship between form-based code principles and exist-ing affordable housing policies.
To identify possible links between affordable housing and form-based codes I developed a list of planning and development methods that are generally accepted as affordable housing best practices. I also listed the necessary components of form-based codes and how they have been applied to affordable housing. I then com-pared affordable housing best practices with form-based code principles. For example, a major component found in form-based codes is a strong and truly guiding community vision. The vision is then used as a base to generate code design and regulations. If a vision supports a diversity of housing, the code should maintain that community value by incorporating policies and objectives that encourage, directly or indirectly, a diversity of housing. Ad-ditional elements and policies may go beyond the code by building upon ob-jectives and goals guided by the vision, providing even more opportunities for affordable housing development.
A critical step in my research strategy was interviewing experts currently working in the affordable housing, de-sign and planning fields. I conducted a total of nine interviews. Interviewees included affordable housing advocates, form-based code experts, city officials, architects, and developers. Interviews were organized by the interviewee’s area of expertise. If the interviewee was experienced in affordable housing de-velopment but did not have experience with form-based codes, I organized the interview to identify specific barriers and indicators of affordable housing development that led to the develop-ment’s success or failure. An interview matrix can be found in the Appendix.
Spring 2015 9
Types of Form-based Codes:
The following research looks at three versions of form-based codes as they are applied in different communities with and without additional housing policies:
Community-wide/City-wide Form-Based Code: This type of form-based code replaces a conventional zoning code. A number of major cities, includ-ing Miami, Florida and Denver, Colorado, have completely replaced their conventional zoning codes with a form-based hybrid code.
Parallel Code (Form-Based Code as an Option to Conventional Code): Some communities have developed a form-based code as an alternative option to conventional codes. Arlington County, Virginia and King County, Washington are two such communities that have adopted this type of zoning approach.
Area Specific Form-Based Codes: Many communities have chosen to adopt area-specific form-based codes that apply to only limited areas. They can exist as a permanent code, operating much like an overlay zone. Montgom-ery County, Maryland uses this type of code for the Columbia Pike Neigh-borhood.
Affordable Housing Programs and Tools
The following is a list of affordable housing incentives and methods I referenced as I conducted my analysis:
Programs Land Use and Zoning Tools Financial Tools
l00l00l0l000l00l0000 l00 l00l0000 l l 00 l00 l0l000l00 l0000l00 l00 l0000ll 00 l00 l0 l000l00l0000l00 l00l0000ll00l00 l0 l000l0
Form-Based Codes
Spring 2015 11
Overthe years zoning, in the conventional sense, has become more complex as development practices, trends, and public standards have evolved. This evolution has stretched and forced conventional zoning to continually amend and add new regulations and policies. The need for amendments occur as new obstacles
caused by existing regulations are realized, usually a result of barriers preventing new development or uses, causing a layering effect. This layering of regulations can cause difficulties when interpreting a zoning code lead-ing to delays in development processes and lengthy negotiations.
12 Spring 2015
designing for people to designing for automobiles. This transition has lead to the promotion of low-density devel-opment, focusing on which uses to prohibit and causing the separation of uses that are in close relationship with daily activities (Chicago 2008). One of the bigger arguments is conventional zoning does not allow localities to meet the goals of their comprehensive plan by encouraging development that is not aligned with what a community has designated as desirable (Chicago 2008).
Through New Urbanism and the in-vention of the SmartCode, form-based codes were conceived as a new method to address increasingly complicated zoning issues. The enforceable concept of governing the built environment through form regulation instead of use has been around since the Roman Empire. Principles and concepts that define form-based codes can be traced through history as having the follow-ing founding attributes: significant enforceability; intent to prescribe the public realm, often by regulating pri-vate building; and the direct or indirect production of “time-tested forms of urbanism” (Talen 2009). Form-based codes aim to provide clear guidelines on what is allowed instead of what isn’t allowed. As a result zoning regula-tions are simplified and attempt to
BackgroundConventional zoning is based on the planning practice of separating of uses that are found as incompatible (Towns vs. Euclid). The basic princi-ples behind conventional codes were in response to the growth in population and the increase in gross domestic product during the industrial era (Chicago 2008). After several decades of conventional zoning and planning, researchers began to identify conven-tional zoning practices as a source for some city and community issues. What many researchers have realized is conventional zoning has led to a loss in efficient use of land, limiting a mix of housing types (Power 2007). Current zoning and land use patterns are prod-ucts of zoning. Form-based codes look to reintroduce and preserve elements of traditional neighborhoods, which were established prior to the enacting of conventional zoning that relied on property agreements and covenants. An example of conventional zon-ing found as no longer applicable in certain built environment contexts, are industrial zone districts. As industries have changed and reduced in intensity, areas currently zoned general indus-trial now sit vacant requiring zoning changes to redevelop the site into more flexible zone districts.
Some consequences of conventional zoning have been a transition from
undo some of the trends bought on by conventional zoning. Sprawl, auto de-pendence, and a reduction in physical activity have been seen as a potential consequence of unchecked conven-tional zoning.
Form-based codes, being implemented in their most modern form, have been around for over thirty years but only in the last decade or so has the idea of SmartCodes been seen as having a large impact on the built environment. Hundreds of codes have been passed since 2000 and are currently being used in a variety of forms. Form-based codes were originally designed to “streamline” greenfield development but found a role in regional planning by taking the place of conventional zoning (Chicago 2013). Form-based codes were brought to the forefront in 1982 when Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk’s created the master-planned community of Seaside, Florida (Gwinnett County 2011). Some communities viewed with having suc-cessful implementation of form-based codes are Petaluma, Calif.; Saint Lucie County, Fla.; and Arlington County, Va.
Spring 2015 13
Form-based codes can be defined as “a method of regulating development to achieve a specific urban form” (Sir-kowski 2007). By addressing the form and mass of buildings, and their rela-tionship to each other and the street, form-based codes are able to regulate the physical form of the public realm. Diagrams and words are used with-in the code to designate and provide guidance on a community’s desired form. During a code’s drafting process a charrette is conducted to engage the community and receive valuable feed-back to create a strong guiding com-munity vision. As a community vision is formed it becomes an integrated part of how and what the code will regulate.
A form-based code can be further defined as a tool that encourages “the quality of development outcomes as dependent on the quality and objec-tives of the community plan that a code implements” (Sirkowski 2007). Key characteristics of form-based codes are their ability to preserve and transform communities by compre-hensively identifying aspects of the built environment most desired by a
community. Form regulations protect and promote the desired relationship between building form and the public realm (Chicago 2013). Major princi-ples of form-based codes are founded on the idea of redefining the urban composition by realizing elements in neighborhoods that we find most de-sirable and encouraging development that is supportive of those elements. Form-based code principles look to create, improve, and preserve the positive elements of the public realm by focusing on context and are gener-ally built upon the following principles (Gwinnett County 2011):
• They are prescriptive, rather than proscriptive
• Promotes the development of a balanced community
• Ensure that private development contributes to the public realm
• Vehicle miles are reduced• Provide readability• Codifies a community’s DNA
What is a Form-based Code?
14 Spring 2015
The Regulating Plan
The regulating plan: is comparable to a zoning map but is more detailed and comprehensive, defining place and the desired character of the public realm. The plan can be organized in street frontage type, transection zone, or identifying physical regions where additional standards may apply.
Building Form Standards (or Ur-ban)
Within the code, graphics depict exist-ing or desirable building forms. These generally include the bulk, height, coverage, and may include additional building use standards.
Public Space Standards
These standards define the relationship between infrastructure, such as streets and sidewalks known as the public realm, and building form. Standards include width and dimensions of streets and may include standards for paths, street trees and other public realm physical attributes.
Administration and Definitions
Form-based codes include a glossary of technical terms to ensure precision of the code’s application. This also ensures a predictable and streamlined review process.
Components of Form-based Codes
Step 1
Scoping: defines the area of the community to be addressed through the form-based code and the extent to which form-based codes interact with existing regulations.
Step 2
Assessing Existing Conditions: Documents and analyzes the community’s existing urban form at different scales, providing a basis for the creation of the form-based code.
Step 3
Visioning and Creating Regulations: Defines the community’s vision for its future and determines the specific regulations and procedures of the form-based code.
Development Steps
Architectural Standards
Some cities or communities may choose to include architectural stan-dards. These standards regulate build-ing styles and materials and define ways they may be permitted in archi-tectural elements.
Subdivision standards
Form-based subdivision standards usually focus on block and lot stan-dards that promote walkable com-munities for larger developments. Walkable communities are commonly characterized by gridded street pat-terns and smaller lot sizes. Sometimes landscaping standards are also includ-ed in subdivision standards. mark
Spring 2015 15
There are three versions of form-based codes that are most commonly used. The first is a comprehensive replace-ment of an area’s existing code. This approach identifies a specific area in which only form-based code regula-tions are applicable (Chicago 2013). It is specifically used to transform or preserve an area’s desired character-istics. The second type is known as hybrid zoning code. Hybrid zoning codes combine both form-based zon-ing districts and conventional zoning regulations. The third type is known as an optional/parallel code. This type of form-based code is independent from the existing conventional code but does not act to replace it. This kind of code is usually used as an optional code and operates as an alternative set of regulations for developers to utilize depending on the development project (Chicago 2013).
Form-based codes are organized by principle. The Chicago Handbook for Form-based codes identifies three main organizing principles; tran-sect-based codes, building type, and street hierarchy. Transect-based codes use the concept of rural to urban transect as a method for organization. The transect concept classifies areas by built form intensity, with urban centers as the most intense and rural areas as the least. Codes organized by building type are used for infill development and defined by standards within the code that regulate configurations of buildings. The third concept is based on street grids and hierarchy to dictate the overall built environment its result-ing form.
Form-Based Code Types
The ability for jurisdictions to regulate form was first authorized in the late 1920’s. The 1926 Standard State Zoning Enabling Act provisions “grant pow-er” to local governments to regulate height, number of stories and size; lot coverage; yards, courts and other open spaces; density; and location and use of structures and land (Sitkowski 2007). Uses are not completely ignored in form-based codes. Building func-tion standards based on the concept of transect form can also be added to a code. This allows some flexibility for the market to dictate which uses may
be in certain buildings. Uses are also not completely allowed to be dissolved in form-based codes due to several federal statutes, which include the Fair Housing Amendments Act, the Tele-communications Act and the Religious Land use and Institutionalized Persons Act, of which are use-based (Sitkow-ski, 2007). Form-based codes must also satisfy and justify requirements for enacting policing powers (public health, safety, and general welfare), which were enabled under convention-al zoning. ea
Legal Considerations
16 Spring 2015
While there exists evidence that form-based codes have accomplished much of what they were designed to do, several criticisms do surround the reality of form-based application. Some criticisms include concern with the codes ability to be accepted by a com-munity, the codes impact on property values, and in some cases, unintention-ally limitation of development options. Some research has proposed that the real estate communities’ perspectives on form-based zoning regulations may lead them to become “wary” in accept-ing form-based standards (Read 2014). An increase in property values has also been associated with the implementa-tion of form-based codes. Increases in property values could result in elim-inating the feasibility for affordable housing development.
Form-based codes are changing the way cities look at zoning and are be-coming a promising alternative to con-ventional zoning. While conventional zoning enforces standards that can often be confusing and unpredictable, form-based codes dictate the form of the built environment, establishing and protecting a strong relationship with the public realm. Form-based codes may lead to more predictabil-ity, preservation, and flexibility for new development. When considering form-based zoning as an alternative, a community can tailor enforceable regulations to preserve and promote forms defined by community-founded goals and objectives, such as affordable housing.
Conclusion
Form-based Zoning Conventional Zoning
Encourages mixed use, walkability, and compact development-oriented principles.
Auto Oriented, segregated land-use planning principles.
Based on the public realm and the built form.
Organized around single-use zoning.
Based on spatial organizing principles that identify and reinforce an urban hierarchy, such as the rural-to-urban transect.
Use is primary
Proactive community visioningReactive to individual development proposals.
Prescriptive regulations: Describing what is required, such as build-to lines and combined min/max building heights.
Proscriptive regulations: Regulating what is not permitted, as well as unpredictable numeric parameters, like density and FAR.
Regulates to create places Regulates to create buildings
Table 2: Conventional and Form-based Zoning Comparison
l00l00l0l000l00l0000 l00 l00l0000 l l 00 l00 l0l000l00 l0000l00 l00 l0000ll 00 l00 l0 l000l00l0000l00 l00l0000ll00l00 l0 l000l0
Zoning and Affordable Housing
Spring 2015 19
Zoning can have a sub-stantial impact on housing: where it is built, what type, and what form. Several zoning regulations are credit-ed with having significant impact on affordable housing development. Some of the major zoning barriers include limitations on density, housing types, setbacks, parking requirements and unit size. Extensive research and case studies demonstrate existing regu-latory barriers to affordable housing and the impact that zoning has on the creation of those barriers.
The relationship between housing and zoning has a complex legal history, over time determining which level
of governance is responsible for the enforcement of zoning and affordable housing requirements. Affordable housing was initially recognized in need of governmental intervention in 1937 with the passing of the United States Housing Act. In 1975, a New Jersey court case, Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mt. Laurel, 336 A.2d 713 (N.J. 1975) (Mt. Laurel I), found that land use controls that encourage exclusionary zoning was in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The ruling resulted in legislation requiring local governments to exer-cise land use controls that provided affordable housing opportunities.
20 Spring 2015
A study published by HUD in 2000 found that development proposals faced with aggressive and overly complicated regulations have shown to add up to “17% to cost of rents and 51% to home values” (Walden 2012). One possible reason for more complex processes is the result of layered regu-lations, causing standards and process-es to become overly complicated or even redundant. Complex codes, strict design guidelines, ineffective ordi-nances and public opposition all pose possible barriers. A study conducted by HUD in 1991 found opposition by residents and public officials to afford-able housing is also a major barrier. An additional barrier to affordable housing development is the developer’s view of the housing market’s demands. Market’s that are not supportive of affordable housing forces developers to must rely on municipalities to provide guidance by being clear and managing development expectations (Powers 2007).
Over the years, as more and more communities faced complex affordable housing issues, cities and towns began to leverage the legality of zoning as one possible solution. In the 1970’s, the use
of Planned Unit Developments (PUD) was an indication of municipalities accepting denser solutions to housing issues (Ritzdorf 1985). Many PUDs provided flexible zoning not provided by the surrounding zoning district. Viewed as a necessary alternative, PUDs were “seldom connected to a vision of cultural pluralism, different kinds of family life, and more diverse communities” (Ritzdorf 1985). As a result of early zoning amendments, ne-gotiations started playing a key role in affordable housing development. De-bates between local governments and developers on density and height have led to developments, though contain-ing affordable units, failed to achieve compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. These results have neg-atively impacted the probability of new affordable housing developments.
To address current housing needs several states have taken legal action, requiring local jurisdictions to create a comprehensive housing plan (eg. CA and FL). New Jersey and Connecticut have assigned cities and towns with a specific “fair share “ of providing housing in the region. California and Florida require jurisdictions to have
Introductioncomprehensive housing plans. Alter-natively, a Massachusetts’s state law allows some developers to by-pass local zoning and land use regulations if they provide a certain percentage of affordable housing (Wendel 2012).
It should also be noted that land use laws and regulations influence the cost of housing development, both directly and indirectly (Wendel 2012). Urban development patterns and form, which are directly effected by zoning and land use regulations, may cause housing cost inflation, pricing out those most vulnerable to higher costs of living. Zoning regulations also impact where housing can be built and has the po-tential to exclude certain housing types from being located in suburbs or areas of job growth, often having a greater impact on lower income households (HUD 2003). In general, barriers to affordable rental housing (including high code standards, development fees and zoning/land use regulations) make housing that is unsubsidized unafford-able for low-income households (Yates & Gavin 2005).
Spring 2015 21
In general, developers rely on jurisdic-tions to provide zoning incentives and subsidies to make affordable housing a reality. Often there can be a difference between an area’s designated zone dis-trict and its current land use, leading to conflicting development outcomes. New development that is compatible with an area’s current land uses may be subject to zoning regulations viewed as undesirable to the current charac-ter and context of the surrounding neighborhood. It is then based on negotiations between developers and jurisdictions to ensure compatibility is maintained. Through the use of zoning incentives, a developer could have an increase in opportunity to create a housing project more consistent with a
neighborhood’s character (more units, increase in height) that may have been difficult previously under conventional zoning.
A diverse array of zoning tools have been designed to directly impact affordable housing creation. Tools that are designed explicitly for affordable housing are commonly found in inclu-sionary housing ordinances. Indirect tools can be found in form-based codes. A purposeful comprehensive plan can be detailed and supportive of housing quality, affordability and type, with a connection to community “viability” and quality of life (Walden 2012).
Land Use and Zoning Strategies
Density
Higher density can improve these opportunities by accommodating more units on a parcel or lot and adding in a reduction in costs. Communities that do not permit higher density housing (eg. multi-family housing) can limit and even prevent affordable housing opportunities. Depending on zoning requirements, limitations imposed from other plans, and site criteria defined in numerous plan-ning documents, density bonuses can require additional planning and review processes. For density bonuses to be effective they should be feasible in a variety of circumstances, easy to use, be monitored by benchmarks and be adjustable (Casella & Meck 2009). Additionally, successful density bonus should be easily administered.
Diversity of Housing Types
Limiting the type of housing to single family units within a zone district can lead to exclusionary outcomes. His-torically, many communities devel-oped with a mix of single family and multi-family residences. A diversity of housing types can allow for mixed-in-come development and accommodates a range of life-styles as well.
Development and Design Standards
Zoning and development standards also have the potential to require unnecessary amenities or high cost building materials adding to develop-ment costs. Design standards and zon-ing requirements that are compatible with one area’s existing context applied city-wide can lead to development that is not only incompatible with the surrounding area but conflicts with a
community’s comprehensive and long-term area plans.
Zoning codes that limit the use of manufactured homes can limit afford-able housing options. HUD housing now has stricter regulations on con-struction and types of building mate-rials for manufactured homes, making them a safe alternative to custom built homes.
Inclusionary Zoning
Inclusionary zoning can be manda-tory or voluntary. A main principle of inclusionary zoning is intergrating affordable or mix-income into mar-ket-rate developments. One type of inclusionary zoning is known as “life-style neutral zoning,” which allows the elimination of residential use controls on the number of units on a lot but still retains height and yard restrictions
Affordable Housing Tools
22 Spring 2015
existing in the current zoning district (Gellen 2012).
Mixed-Use Zoning
To encourage a compatible mix of uses that are consistent with tradition-al zoning, towns and cities may use mixed-use zoning districts that provide developers with zoning alternatives. Mixed-used districts provide a flexibil-ity of uses, mix of land uses, parking agreements, increased or decreased lot size, etc. Mixed-use districts can allow the intregration of different housing types, increasing a communities ability to provide a diverse range of housing options.
Incentives
Incentive zoning may be voluntary or mandatory depending on local and state housing regulations. For man-datory incentive zoning a developer is required to provide a percentage of affordable housing in a new resi-dential development. The percentage of required affordable housing units can vary but generally start at around 10 to 25% of the total new residential units being proposed (Wandel 2012). The utilization of voluntary incentive zoning can involve parking reductions, density bonuses, and flexible zoning, to encourage developers to designate a certain percentage of new units to affordable housing. Some states require cities to offer density bonuses to devel-opers building affordable housing or senior housing. In other states zoning
incentives may be at the complete discretion of the city or community. Communities may apply zoning incen-tives as a floating or overlay zone.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
Accessory dwellings units (ADUs) are generally a small apartment with a kitchen and bathroom located within the same parcel as the primary dwell-ing. ADUs allow additional density without substantially increasing the demand on infrastructure. They increase the diversity of housing types and promote “life-cycle” housing. ADUs can either be allowed by right or by special permit based on criteria governing the size of the unit, required minimum lot size and parking stan-dards. In Barnstable, Massachusetts the city offers an amnesty program for non-conforming existing accessory units (Wandel 2012). Other cities and towns may offer loan programs, tax incentives, streamlined permitting and reduced development fees as incentives for ADUs. By permitting the use of ADUs, a neighborhood can preserve aspects of a single-family zone district while increasing an area’s housing resources (Ritzdrof 1985).
Affordable Housing Floating ZonerAn affordable housing floating zone is one method of applying incentives for affordable housing to a specific geographic area as projects are pro-posed or as needed. The floating zone may define separate standards that
Tools Continued...are generally found to support afford-able housing, like the preservation of existing affordable housing. Arlington County, Virginia utilizes this type of zoning method.
Subdivision Zoning
A study conducted by the NAHB Research Center in 2007 found that subdivision standards can have an ef-fect on housing prices (Casella & Meck 2009). Costs were most influenced by lot size and width, minimum floor area, setbacks, parking, and rights of way. Researchers conducting the study produced benchmarks for less to more dense lot size. When setbacks and frontage requirements are increased required infrastructure costs also in-crease. A study conducted in Wiscon-sin concluded that increasing required minimum frontage by 10 feet increased prices by 6%-8% (Walden 2012).
Cluster Zoning
Cluster zoning, a type of subdivision zoning, allows land to be subdivided into smaller lots. By concentrating the built area, costs for infrastructure and roadways are decreased. Smaller homes are also built or more diverse housing types may also be built. Clus-ter communities generally have trails and path systems and depending on locality, may help reduce transporta-tion costs (Walden 2012).
Spring 2015 23
Along with the most common methods of incentivizing affordable housing de-velopment, changes to existing zoning codes and regulations can have impact as well. For instance, looking at issues within a community, such as available housing stock, and considering what affordable housing options may be available within a community or built environment as it currently exists. Accessory dwelling units are usually considered an acceptable affordable housing option. If ADUs are a viable option, a community should ask the question “What regulations may be impacting the possibility of accessory dwelling units from being a housing option?” In some communities adjust-ing the required lot size, parking, and permitting processes can allow the use of ADUs. It is also important to realize that even with an increase in ADU creation, the potential of rent prices to become unaffordable is still a possi-bility. Additional ordinances that aid in the retention of affordable housing can be effective at ensuring the original purpose of the regulations is protected.
Recognizing existing constraints is the first step in removing affordable housing barriers. As barriers are removed, the availability of sites and possibility of obtaining approval for affordable housing developments, have
the potential to improve (HUD 2003). Comprehensive and regional plans that are consistent with the region’s future development and growth are essential for implementing a successful housing program (Witten 2012). An afford-able housing plan can be lost if its foundation is not rooted in planning principles. By ignoring these principles and approaching affordable housing issues from only one direction, other elements that impact affordable living can go unnoticed. Marsha Ritzdof in Zoning Barriers to Housing Innova-tion (1985) suggests that as housing compositions and life styles change, land use and zoning patterns should change as well. The development of a comprehensive plan is the first step in identifying a community’s housing de-mands. A comprehensive plan should define goals and objectives aimed at creating housing diversity that targets all members of a community. Commu-nities that are able to adapt to changing demographics, and accommodate a diversity of family types and ages, can be more resilient. A comprehensive plan should be used as a supportive tool in conjunction with clear and precise zoning. When zoning connects the desires of the community with the community’s needs, housing innova-tion is allowed to foster.
l00l00l0l000l00l0000 l00 l00l0000 l l 00 l00 l0l000l00 l0000l00 l00 l0000ll 00 l00 l0 l000l00l0000l00 l00l0000ll00l00 l0 l000l0
Case Studies
Spring 2015 25
To help identify common tools used to promote affordable housing and the potential impact of form-based codes, six case studies were conduct-ed. The following cities and counties were selected based on their having a form-base code, inclusionary housing ordinance (IHO), or a combination of both. To maintain the comparison of form-based and conventional code,
one city and one county were selected as having a successful inclusionary housing ordinance while implement-ing conventional zoning standards and regulations. Specific zoning elements within a city’s or county’s ordinanc-es and codes were identified with to further analyzing form-based code potential.
26 Spring 2015
Located just outside of Washington, D.C, Montgomery County is known for its older, more aggressive and success-ful inclusionary zoning ordinance, dating back to 1974. A major compo-nent of the county’s zoning ordinance is the requirement of even distribution of affordable housing units over the re-gion: this prevents certain areas from having either a larger proportion or a minimal amount of affordable housing. Under the County’s current regula-tions, affordable housing units can be built by either private investors or by the County.
In the seventies, as Montgomery County transitioned from a bedroom community to an employment center, affordable housing availability became an issue. The County responded to this issued by establishing the Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit Program. This program became the County’s first mandatory housing ordinance and is targeted towards renters and first time home byers. Legislation requires that 12.5% of a subdivision proposing 20 or more units must be affordable
to households of low to moderate incomes. Using additional funding programs, the County and non-prof-it housing providers are allowed to purchase one-third of affordable units created in subdivisions and rent these to low-income households (Mont-gomery 2012). The ordinance allows up to a 22% increase in density within the zone. As of 2015, the program has created over 13,200 moderately priced dwelling units, but only 2,300 are still under any type of ordinance or zoning control.
Guided by the County’s Comprehen-sive Plan, created in 2011, Montgom-ery County’s housing policy follows a vision set forth in the plan’s housing element. An additional housing plan defines affordable housing in four separate categories; affordable housing, moderate income, low income, and middle income. To improve the avail-ability of affordable housing, the plan outlines the following goals: preserve existing affordable units, increase the number of units, and support new housing development in transit-ori-
Montgomery County, MD (form-based and IHO)
ented areas (Montgomery 2012). Plan objectives are aimed at promoting the development of affordable hous-ing in mixed-use areas that provide several transportation options. These objectives include; creating neighbor-hood connectivity, providing diverse housing, ensuring the new housing is economically and environmentally sustainable, and that housing develop-ments be based on good design. The plan also emphasizes a strategy that streamlines the development process to encourage more development.
There have been documented successes and issues with Montgomery County’s inclusionary housing ordinance. While the program has been successful in developing affordable housing units, it is directly dependent and “linked to the rate and location of private devel-opment” (Montgomery 2012). Because the ordinance was created when sub-urban land uses were the dominantly residential land use, there have been issues with applying the ordinance to areas defined as more urban or rural.
Spring 2015 27
The City of Boulder’s strict growth management policies and the area’s high desirability have had a major impact on its housing prices, threat-ening the ability for the City to meet its affordable housing needs. The City has had some form of an inclusionary housing ordinance since the 1980’s. In 2002, recognizing the need to create af-fordable housing for individuals work-ing below the area median household income, the City of Boulder passed an aggressive mandatory inclusionary housing ordinance. The ordinance re-quires all new residential developments to set aside 20% of new units created as permanently affordable to households making less than 80% AMI (Business 2005).
In addition to the City of Boulder’s housing ordinance, the City’s zoning code outlines requirements for specific housing types and density incentives in the RMX-2 Zoning District (residen-tial mixed-use 2). Within this zoning district, only lots one acre or less are allowed to have one housing type. Any lot larger than one acre is required to have up to three housing types with no less than four dwelling units if the lot is greater than five acres. Density bonuses within the RMX-2 Zoning District are categorized by a “unit per acre bonus.” To become eligible for a density bonus increase, a percentage of the units being proposed must be designate as permanently affordable. For example, if a project is proposing five to ten units per acre, then forty percent of all units that are proposed for development
must be designated as permanently affordable. To further promote diverse types of affordable housing, the City created a zoning district to preserve existing mobile home parks.
Between 2000 and 2010, the City of Boulder had created almost four hundred permanently affordable units. By 2010, the City had received over 1.5 million dollars of “in-lieu” fees, which has funded an additional fifty units of affordable housing. Fees received are added to the City’s affordable housing fund, aiding in the subsidy of almost eighty affordable housing units per year (Alexandria 2010).
Developers may pay “in-leiu” fees to the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund for the creation of affordable housing units off-site, or they may dedicate land for affordable unit(s) (Business 2005). Due to the City’s lim-ited infill potential, off-site affordable housing has become concentrated in north Boulder. This has caused some tensions with surrounding neighbor-hoods. There has been some specula-tion that having permanently afford-able housing contributes to rising costs of market-rate housing by reducing the number of market-rate units in the City’s current housing stock. Whether or not this is case, the City of Boulder has a measurable amount of success with developing affordable housing units. It should be noted that the City of Boulder does not have a form-based code but is presently looking to a form-based pilot.
City of Boulder, CO (conventional zoning and IHO)
28 Spring 2015
In 2006, the City of Montgomery passed an optional form-based float-ing overlay to the City’s Downtown District. Before the adoption of form-based regulations, the City’s limiting regulations, including setbacks, build-ing placement, and parking require-ments, made the ability to encourage appropriate redevelopment within the district almost impossible. In Octo-ber of 2014, the City of Montgomery passed a city-wide form-based code (City of Montgomery Website). The parallel code provides optional zoning for new development within city limits.
Affordable housing needs are men-tioned in the City’s parallel form-based code. Under the Code’s regional pur-pose section, affordable housing should be distributed throughout the “region
to match job opportunities and reduce concentrations of poverty” (Mont-gomery SmartCode 2014). The City identifies the need to provide a diver-sity of housing types and price levels to accommodate a range of life-styles. One zone in the code requires no less than three residential housing types. Affordable housing under the City’s code is defined as “dwellings consisting of rental units or for-sale units. Both shall be economically within the mean of the equivalent of the starting salary of a local elementary school teach-er” (Montgomery SmartCode 2014). Further support for affordable housing development is demonstrated in the City’s neighborhood plans by mention-ing affordable housing as a compre-hensive goal or principle.
City of Montgomery, AL (form-based and no IHO)
Montgomery does not have an oper-ating inclusionary housing ordinance, but instead relies on several programs that aid in the preservation and devel-opment of affordable housing. Some of these programs and funding sources include HUD funded Community Development Grants. Theses grant funds are used to assist extremely low to low-income families and individuals through housing services and facili-ties. Services include home ownership counseling, housing preservation programs and financial assistance. The City has received over twenty million dollars from HUD’s Home Investment Partnership Program for housing assis-tance programs.
In 2009, the City of Miami, Florida passed the country’s first city-wide form-based code known as Miami21. Miami21 has been as a successful form-based code and was awarded the Driehaus Award for its development process. The code operates under the transect principle to define the city’s zone districts. Within Miami21 there exists four primary zones and three use categories (restricted, limited and open). Each zone is characterized by specific building forms and uses, which provide guidelines for existing housing stock preservation or to encourage new development. Certain districts are detailed even further by height regu-
lations. The City’s form-based code targets the pedestrian realm by includ-ing regulations to encourage building forms that activate the lower level floors, particularly ground level floors. Additional streetscape requirements allow for a wider range of uses (Frey and Kasdin 2009). Affordable and workforce housing distribution is listed as one of the code’s guiding principles.
The City of Miami operates under an Affordable Housing Special Benefit Program included in the City’s zoning ordinance. Developers looking to par-ticipate in the program are required to set aside 80% of dwelling units within
City of Miami, FL (form-based and no IHO)
a proposed development, either for multi-family or elderly, as affordable for those 60% or below and must be affordable for thirty years. A proposed development can also provide units targeted towards various income levels but must be located in a Residential Density Increase Area (City of Miami 2014).
The City also relies heavy on additional affordable housing resources provid-ed by federal programs to maintain funding for local programs designed to provide incentives to developers proposing affordable housing units.
Spring 2015 29
The City and County of Denver ap-proved Colorado’s first context-based city-wide code in 2009. The code is defined as a hybrid form-based code, combining both form-based code principles with conventional zoning standards. A supportive comprehensive plan, known as Blueprint Denver, de-fines neighborhood contexts, providing guidance for approvable development projects. Blueprint Denver establishes a clear definition of future neighborhood development potential, unique to each neighborhood’s distinct characteristics and desired built form. Regulations in the context-based code are tailored to encourage and preserve those desired characteristics. Affordable housing and housing diversity were added as part of overall goals for the context-based code. Affordable housing within the code is enabled by additional incen-tives through density and parking bo-nuses. Any further affordable housing regulations or standards are set forth by the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance. Some concerns with the City’s context-based code include the possible loss of developer incentives due to the overall reduction in parking
requirements and increase in density allowed by the context-based code as it is applied citywide.
In 2002, the City of Denver passed an inclusionary housing ordinance as a response to high housing costs. Between 2002 and 2008, the City expe-rienced success with the development of 1,135 affordable housing units.. The success was short lived and by 2009 only four affordable housing units were built. In 2004, the number of units decreased as development moved to large scale residential, and developers increasingly opted out by paying ‘in-lieu” fees. From 2010 to 2012, only five affordable housing units were added. Acknowledging the inclusionary hous-ing ordinance’s failure to provide the area’s needed affordable housing units, the City amended the ordinance in 2011 (City of Denver 2014).
Under the City’s new inclusionary housing ordinance, housing devel-opments are classified as two types, “Non-Large Scale” and “Large Scale” developments. Developments classified as Large Scale are developments that
City of Denver, CO (form-based and IHO)
enter into a contractual agreement with the City of Denver to provide “at least 200 affordable for sale housing units as part of a master plan” (City of Denver 2014). Non-Large scale devel-opments include developments which are 30 or more units, and ten percent of which are required to be affordable. Affordable housing incentives are based on median for-sale home prices and proximity to transit. Incentive payments and “in-lieu” fees are based on housing zones, to encourage even distribution of affordable housing units throughout the City. Amendments to the ordinance are still too new to determine their level of success and it will be within the next ten years that results from the ordinance can truly be assessed.
30 Spring 2015
Arlington County, Virginia developed a form-based code for the Columbia Pike Area (Columbia Pike Neighbor-hoods Area Plan), a 5-mile corridor that contains the majority of the county’s market rate affordable hous-ing stock (Hickey 2013). Arlington’s Columbia Pikes Neighborhood Area Plan addresses the Corridor’s built form and housing needs. The vision for this area encourages in-fill and rede-velopment of suburban building forms (buildings surrounded by parking) in a sustainable fashion, which will accrue community benefits such as affordable housing, new street connections, and open space. The County’s adopted form-based code for neighborhoods along the Columbia Pike Corridor utilizes form-based overlays to increase density and heights. The overlay also includes affordable housing require-ments and incentives. Development along the Pike Corridor is required to have between 20 and 35 percent of net new units as affordable housing.In the County’s Land Use and Hous-ing study, adopted in 2012, priorities were outlined with the intention of preserving and increasing the number of affordable housing units along the
Columbia Pike Corridor, particularly located in the Pike’s multi-family areas. The affordability requirement is tied to additional development potential determined at a given site. In addition, the code provides parking and height bonuses for developers volunteering to build additional affordable housing units. The Columbia Pike’s comprehen-sive plan explicitly includes goals to expand housing options by improving supply and “preserving affordability within a higher-density development.” By 2010, there existed 6,200 rental affordable housing units and since the adoption of the plan, 626 units were added to the affordable housing inventory (Arlington Housing 2015). An additional 83 units were expected by December 2014. Arlington County utilizes the following land use, zoning, and financial incentive tools noted in both the code and housing ordinance:
The Special Affordable Housing Protection District: Outlined in the General Land Use Plan, identifies existing areas with affordable housing units that are planned for site plan projects of 3.24 floor area ratio (FAR). Any development in this area requires
Arlington County, WV (form-based and IHO)
replacement of affordable housing bedrooms on a one to one basis.
Transfer of Development Rights: Al-lows site plan projects to transfer den-sity and other development rights from one parcel or site plan to another when it preserves affordable housing. This al-lows transfer of density, as determined by the County Board, to where it may be more appropriate.
Bonus Density and Height Exceptions: 25% increase in density and six-sto-ry height bonus allowing the county board to approve additional height and/or density bonuses for market-rate and low or moderate income housing.
Parking Incentive: Those projects that exceed the minimum affordable hous-ing base-level requirements qualify for parking reduction, from 1.125 spaces a unit to .825 spaces per unit.
Arlington County also maintains sev-eral maps that identify areas contain-ing affordable housing to be preserved and areas that would benefit from redevelopment.
Spring 2015 31
While most jurisdictions use HUD’s definition of affordable housing at 30% AMI, it is rarely the case that afford-able housing developments are pro-posed for 30% AMI without the aid of additional funding. All six case studies defined 40% or higher AMI as the majority of affordable housing devel-opment and look to federally funding programs to provide additional re-sources for low-income housing devel-opment. Code language in most of the cases studies that address affordable housing directly, mention the need to
distribute affordable housing equally through out the city or region. All six cases look to increasing the amount of affordable housing by promoting diversity of housing types. The most successful inclusionary housing ordi-nances have detailed density bonuses. All six case studies rely on a strong regulatory element as a means of producing affordable housing. The use of zone districts or overlays to enforce inclusion is one example of applying inclusionary ordinance requirements as a zoning regulation .
ConclusionJurisdictions may feel limited in their ability to require affordable housing development and look to zoning as a reliable tool. But, as demonstrated by the case studies, the practice of zon-ing for affordable housing can have some limitations. It can be assumed, with consideration to context, that successful zoning practices focused on affordable housing should be accom-panied by meaningful and well design comprehensive plans and inclusionary housing policies.
l00l00l0l000l00l0000 l00 l00l0000 l l 00 l00 l0l000l00 l0000l00 l00 l0000ll 00 l00 l0 l000l00l0000l00 l00l0000ll00l00 l0 l000l0
Analysis
Spring 2015 33
Form-based codes focus on the context of the surrounding built environment and the relationship be-tween buildings and the street, as well as public and private spaces (Chicago 2008). Form-based code’s principles promote a mix of uses, focusing on the design and preservation of the “public realm,” and are able to “tailor” regulations to a specific area provid-ing clear implementation steps for planners, designers, and developers. Form-based codes can be useful as a valuable alternative to conventional
zoning. They can increase and poten-tially regulate factors that are critical for affordable housing development. But, it would be misguided to conclude that form-based code use alone can re-solve affordable housing issues. While ordinances and codes may succeed in creating affordable housing, their ability to maintain that affordability is just as critical. Through the combina-tion of form regulation and regionally distributed fair housing ordinances, affordable housing can foster.
34 Spring 2015
Form-based codes are a useful tool for promoting objectives that are key for affordable housing development by implementing a collective community vision. Additionally, three elements of form-based codes can be directly con-nected to affordable housing develop-ment: 1) promoting designs that lead to successful housing; 2) its ability to work in tandem with housing ordi-nances; and 3) its ability to integrate built environment elements that are connected with sustainability, alter-native modes of transportation, and community development. Additionally, form-based codes can directly impact
the development of affordable housing by encouraging mixed-use and diversi-ty in housing types, increased den-sity, and the ability to streamline the approval process. Form-based codes also allow for an increase in flexibility of design, as long as the development’s designs are compatible with the area’s context. However, the type and dimen-sions of the building will restrict what uses may occupy the building (Walden 2012).
Form-based codes can help create and sustain a built environment that pro-motes walkability, quality public realm
How Can Form-based Codes Promote Affordable Hous-ing?
creation and preservation, and sustain-ability. These are all elements that help reduce the cost of living. The number largest household expense behind housing costs, are transportation costs. By requiring improved walkability, and through incorporation of public trans-portation, form-based code principles may reduce overall living expenses. Form-based code’s ability to promote sustainability also decreases costs in long-term operation and maintenance of the affordable housing unit.
Form-based codes rely on maintenance of a detailed comprehensive plan, com-munity vision, and strong inclusionary housing ordinance. Effective code implementation depends on the use of a supportive comprehensive hous-ing plan. A comprehensive housing plan should be conducted along side the form-based code process. To act as an effective supporting document, a comprehensive plan should include a profile of existing housing types to identify where there may be gaps in
the existing housing stock. The goals of the plan should explicitly address housing issues and set forth locally appropriate objectives. Visioning and public outreach during a comprehen-sive plan development process can be an important tool in educating community leaders about why fair housing is important. Along with a community vision, the code should be supported by a strong inclusionary housing ordinance that emphasizes additional regulations. Inclusionary
What Should Be Used With Form-based Codes to Sup-port Affordable Housing?
housing ordinances create affordable housing and form-based codes pro-tect, preserve, and integrate affordable housing, ensuring their compatibility and success. The goal of a form-based code is to guide new development and preserve existing development that is consistent with community character. The code provides regulations based on goals and objectives established by the community’s comprehensive plan with ordinances acting as additional support.
Spring 2015 35
A crucial aspect of form-based codes is community engagement and input during code development. Allowing members of the community to identify characteristics that the community as a whole would like to encourage or preserve, allows citizens to have ownership in the code. This ownership may have the ability to reduce NIM-BYism by increasing the predictability
of development. A research review conducted by the Arizona University on 21 case studies found that afford-able housing developments that were designed to fit within the existing con-text of the surrounding neighborhood were found to be more accepted within the community, making the overall development more successful.
NIMBYism
Affordable housing should not just be about housing but should also consider aspects of everyday life. The design of affordable housing and the develop-ment’s relationship with the surround-ing context can impact the potential success of a particular development. The success of affordable housing can relay on development’s ability to incor-porate amenities, maintain connections with the public realm, and provide diverse housing options.
They promote public space develop-ment and take into account adjacency to transit. A development that is acces-sible and welcoming allows residents to interact with each, developing a sense of community. There have been several
notable affordable housing develop-ments, while architecturally appeal-ing, have failed at creating a sense of community. Some design elements that have been considered as indica-tors for successful developments are flexibility, equitable and intuitive use of space, maintains perceptible informa-tion, minimizes hazards, can be used efficiently, and is appropriately sized (Kessler 2006).
Design element utilization is consid-ered in varying degrees depending on the potential housing occupants needs. Design considerations for affordable housing developments include design of parking, open space, privacy, and visibility (Crites 2012). Many form-
Affordable Housing Designbased codes can encourage certain design elements that are more support-ive of a more desirable built environ-ment For example, by regulating the placement of parking, ensuring that frontages are protected areas, increas-ing the safety of the public realm. A sense of community includes walkabil-ity, access to services and amenities, and safety. Regulations that promote and preserve these elements are more likely to sustain a sense of community. Form-based codes allow a flexible use of materials and design and what can be built as long as it is compatible with the surround areas form or context. They also allow for the ability to devel-op and design for a larger diversity of housing and encourage mix-use.
36 Spring 2015
There are several legal considerations to take into account when applying form-based codes. Three major consid-erations include; regulation feasibility, the creation of new non-conformities, and the degree of prescription (Sit-kowski 2007). Ideals and principles embodied in form-based codes may be impractical, and even legally untenable, emphasizing the importance of assess-ing which principles can act as legally binding objectives or policy. With any new regulations there are potential unintended consequences if the code is implemented incorrectly; communities
should be prepared to adjust the code as issues arise. Additionally, an aggres-sively prescriptive code may negatively impact the likelihood of development occurring if regulations are overly complex (Walden 2012).
A form-based code that does not suc-cessfully reflect a community’s values can limit the potential for affordable housing opportunities. With this mind, additional ordinances that target spe-cific areas of regulation can improve the chances for form-based codes to induce affordable housing creation.
Legal ConsiderationsSeveral zoning and land use cases have established parameters on exclusion-ary zoning, housing availability, and regional housing share. Form-based codes can embody existing land use parameters and development incen-tives for developers as part of munic-ipalities existing zoning regulations, reducing the amount of time needed for a review process and incentive ne-gotiations. For example, conflicts with family definitions, group homes and the power of the local land use controls can be lessened or even eliminated.
Spring 2015 37
While one of the most prominent challenges with affordable housing development can involve the ability for regulations to effectively create and maintain affordable housing. A com-monly overlooked aspect of affordable housing is the difference between providing affordable units and meet-ing community needs, and providing affordable housing that is successfully
accepted as a valuable addition to a community. There also exists a differ-ence between construction of afford-able housing and the ability for the units to stay affordable. Both are need-ed to define affordable housing devel-opments as successful. Form-based codes can help maintain and preserve existing housing stock by protecting specific built environment characteris-
Measuring the Success of Affordable Housing
Housing innovation is defined as a change in supply, design, location and reuse of housing “to make it available to a larger constituency”.
tics contributing to affordable housing success. These characteristics include design compatibility, accessibility, and ability to maintain affordability. Zoning can either directly or indirectly impact affordable housing creation. It is the combination of the two that helps ensure creation and preservation of affordability.
l00l00l0l000l00l0000 l00 l00l0000 l l 00 l00 l0l000l00 l0000l00 l00 l0000ll 00 l00 l0 l000l00l0000l00 l00l0000ll00l00 l0 l000l0
References
Spring 2015 39
Arlington county. Housing on Co-lumbia Pike. Housing Website. http://housing.arlingtonva.us/housing-co-lumbia-pike/. March 12, 2015.
Business and Professional People for Public Interests (2005). Success in Af-fordable Housing: The Metro Denver Experience. BPI. February 2005. P 2-5.
Casella, Sam and Stuart Meck (2009). Removing Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing in Development Standards, Density Bonuses, and Processing of Permits in Hillsborough County, Florida. Cityscape, Vol. 11, No. 2, Regulatory Innovation and Af-fordable Housing (2009), pp. 61-82
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) 2008. Form-Based Codes: A Step by Step Gide for Com-munities. CMAP. pg 7-?
City of Alexandria (2010). Affordable Housing Regulatory Tools Case Stud-ies. Compiled by the Alexandria Office of Housing. December 2010. P 5-6.
City of Denver (2014). 2014 Inclusion-ary Housing Report. Office of Eco-nomic Development. p 2-8.
City of Miami (2014). Zoning Ordi-nance No. 13114.
City of Montgomery (2014). Smart-Code. Adopted October 9, 2014.
Frey, Andrew and Neisen Kasdin (2009). First Major U.S City to Adopt-ed Form-Based Zoning.
Akerman Practice. Land Use and Sus-tainable Development. October 2009. P 1-4.
Hickey, Robert (2013). Form-based codes can turn land use policy into af-fordable housing strategy. Brainstorm-ing Bright Ideas for the Future. NHC Open House Blog. 17 Dec. 2013.
HUD (2003). Why Not In Our Com-munity? Removing Barriers to Afford-able Housing.An up to the Report of the advisory commission on Regulatory barriers to affordable housing U.S department of housing and urban development 2003
Miami21
Montgomery County, Department of Housing and Community Affairs (2012). 2012 Housing Policy: A Hous-ing Policy for Montgomery County, Maryland. October 2012.
Murray, Jon (2014). Denver Affordable Housing Efforts Face Uncertainty after Council Vote. Denver Post. Aug. 28, 2014. denverpost.com
Read, Dustin and David Waltors (2014). Form-based Zoning from Theory to Practice. Real Estate Issues. Insider’s Perspective. Vol. 39. Pg 29-36.
Ritzdorf, Marsha. Iowa State Universi-ty. Zoning Barriers to Housing Innova-tion. 1985
Schubert, Michael F., and Alison Thresher (1996). Lessons from the Field: Three Case Studies of Mixed Income Housing Development. Great Cities Institute, University of Illinois at Chicago. April 1996. P 14-20.
Sitkowski, Robert J. (2007). Form and Substance: What Land Use Lawyers need to know about Form-based Land Development Regulations. Zoning and Planning Law Report. Vol. 30, No. 3. Pg 1-7.
Smith, Marc T., William ODell, and Douglas White (2004). Weaknesses in Current Measures of Housing Needs.
Housing and Society. Volum 31, No. 1, 2004
Talen, Emily AICP (2009) Design by the Rules: The Historical Underpin-nings of Form-Based Codes. Journal of the American Planning Association, 75:2, 144-160
Wendel (2012). Affordable Housing and Zoning Techniques. Erie County Community Development Block Grant Consortium. Erie County Department of Environment and Planning. October 2012.
Yates, Judith and Gavin Wood. Afford-able Rental housing: Lost, Stolen and Strayed. The Economic Record, Vol. 81, NO. 255, August 2005, S82-S95.
Interviews:
Rachel Allen. City of Boulder Depart-ment of Housing. March 16, 2015.
Jim Bershof. Principal at OZ Archtiec-ture. March 26, 2015.
John Lucer. Deputy Director of Eco-nomic Development for the City of Denver. March 9, 2015.
Kenneth Hoagland. Community Capi-tal Corp. Feb. 26, 2015.
Chuck Perry. Rose Development Com-pany. March 17, 2015.
l00l00l0l000l00l0000 l00 l00l0000 l l 00 l00 l0l000l00 l0000l00 l00 l0000ll 00 l00 l0 l000l00l0000l00 l00l0000ll00l00 l0 l000l0
Appendix
Spring 2015 41
Table Three: Zoning Policies and Tools Strategies Details
Policies and Regulations Lot Size
Lot size averaging allows the size of individual lots within a development to vary from the zoned maximum density, provided that the average lot size in the development as a whole meets that maximum. Housing can then be developed on lots that are smaller than otherwise permitted in a zone, allowing for greater densities in some areas and more diversity throughout the development.
Townhomes
"Townhomes are attached single family units, generally sharing one or both side walls with neighboring units. Individual units may have their own small front or back yards or share a common open space. Depending on design and underlying development regulations, units may be located on separate lots or on undivided, commonly owned land. Allowing townhomes in single family zones can promote affordable housing opportunities and increased diversity in both established and new communities.
Mixed-use Development
Multifamily housing refers to a broad range of residential devel-opment types that are characterized by multiple dwelling units contained in a single building or otherwise adjoined by shared walls. Multifamily development may be constructed at different scales (e.g., low-rise, mid-rise, high-rise) depending on the character of the district and can be developed as rental or ownership housing.
Cluster Development
Cluster subdivisions or developments locate housing around green space or other amenities, allowing houses to be closer on one portion of a site to preserve natural features elsewhere. This can increase land use efficiency, lower infrastructure development and maintenance costs, lower site grading and drainage costs, and help preserve open space and natural features. Clustering is often used when a portion of a building site is constrained by sensitive or criti-cal areas or as a rural development technique.
ADUs, single family conversion
An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is a small, self-contained resi-dential unit built on the same lot as an existing single family home. ADUs may be built within a primary residence or detached from the primary residence. They can be an effective way to add variety and affordable rental housing stock to existing single family neigh-borhoods.
Mulifamily Development
Multifamily housing refers to a broad range of residential devel-opment types that are characterized by multiple dwelling units contained in a single building or otherwise adjoined by shared walls. Multifamily development may be constructed at different scales (e.g., low-rise, mid-rise, high-rise) depending on the character of the district and can be developed as rental or ownership housing.
Inclusive Ordinance
The method of exacting on or off-site dwelling units or fess in lieu of the exaction in exchange for subdivision approval of an adjudicative permit, or a variance, is a logical tool for increasing the stock of below-market rate housing within a particular development or community at large. (Witten)
Preservation and Rehabilitation
Preservation and rehabilitation efforts are aimed at retaining exist-ing affordable housing, including both subsidized and unsubsidized housing. Programs include preservation/rehabilitation of subsidized affordable units with expiring affordability covenants, affordable housing at risk of redevelopment or conversion), and repair and maintenance (including weatherization) for affordable multi-family units and single-family homes suffering from disinvestment.
42 Spring 2015
Affordable Housing Floating Zone
Detail standards for affordable or senior housing but may not be connected to specific geographic areas but applied when relevant, City of New Rochelle, New York, may be applied to residential zones, non-residential, and urban renewal areas
Planned Unit Developments
Planned unit development (PUD) ordinances allow developers flexibility to depart from existing zoning requirements in exchange for fulfilling an established set of planning criteria. PUDs are also called planned residential developments (PRDs) or urban planned developments (UPDs). The benefits of PUD can include more efficient site design and lower infrastructure and maintenance costs. Ordinances can also be written to require or incentivize public benefits such as affordable housing or open space in exchange for regulatory flexibility and assumed cost savings. Tools like density bonuses and parking requirement reductions can help underwrite the cost of incorporating low- and moderate-income units into a project, either through established incentive programs or imple-mented on a case-by-case basis through development agreements.
Density Bonuses
Density bonuses are a zoning tool that permits developers to build more housing units, taller buildings, or more floor space than normally allowed, in exchange for provision of a defined public benefit, such as a specified number or percentage of affordable units included in the development. An affordable housing density bonus program can be designed to allow developers to contribute to a housing fund in lieu of building the affordable units.
Funding/strategies/pro-grams
Transfer of Development Rights
A transfer of development rights (TDR) program relocates development potential from properties in designated “sending areas” to sites in designated “receiving areas.” A TDR transaction involves: (a) selling the development rights from a sending site, thereby preserving the sending site from future redevelopment; and (b) purchase of those development rights by the owner of a site in the receiving area to be allowed to build at a higher density or height than ordinarily permitted by the base zoning. Typically, TDR sending areas are located in rural and resource lands. However, a TDR program can be structured to allow urban affordable housing preservation projects to qualify as a sending site (e.g., mobile home parks, high-rise low income apartments).
Incentive Zoning
Incentive zoning is a broad regulatory framework for encouraging and stimulating development that provides a desired public benefit as established in adopted planning goals. An incentive zoning system is implemented on top of an existing base of development regulations and works by offering developers regulatory allowances in exchange for public benefits. It can incorporate one or several incentives including density bonuses, flexible development regula-tions, parking reductions, fee waivers or reductions and permitting priority. Common public benefits include affordable housing, historic preservation, open space and recreation, and increased environmental protection.
Promotion of infill
Infill development refers to any new development in already built-up areas. It can also mean redeveloping existing properties to make more efficient use of the land. Generally, infill increases neighbor-hood density and the ratio of improvement-to-land value of the property
TOD FundingFunding for developments, particularly affordable housing develop-ments, that propose housing located within a half-mile of a transit station.
Spring 2015 43
Expedited approval process
Reduce development costs associated with delays,Unpredictabili-ty, delay and excessive process in project review and approval can drive up the cost of housing. Regulatory complexity or rigidity can also restrict a jurisdiction’s ability to attract certain types of desired development or may discourage developers from building in a community. To ensure that local regulations are supportive of ad-opted development and housing goals, jurisdictions should consider reviewing and streamlining their permitting processes and develop-ment regulations to eliminate unnecessary costs and barriers and facilitate development of affordable or innovative housing types
Reduction in infrastructure re-quirements (parking), subsidies
Reduces infrastructure costs, Reduced parking requirements (partic-ularly for properties in a developed area, such as a downtown or a village center, or for projects near transit)
Form-base codes may reduce effectiveness of affordable housing incentives.
Form-based codes allow for a diversity of housing types.
Compatibility with sur-rounding neighborhood, reducing NIMBYism
Flexibility in design, de-velopment of the public realm
Form-based codes can make development more affordable.
Regulations
Need more regulations that focus on affordable housing.
There exists limited policies addressing affordable housing at the zoning enforcement level.
Flexibility with density and parking.
Predictability in devel-opment process.
Need a easy to under-stand code
Form-based codes can help create a well-round-ed development.
Parking and density ap-plied equally to all zoning districts has negative and positive impacts.
Form-based codes can be easier to implement.
Development Process Provides opportunity for housing negotiations.
Conventional zoning process can be time and cost consuming.
Form-based codes seem to streamline the devel-opment process.
Form-based codes provide a clear regulations for de-velopers and planners.
Affordable Housing Barriers
Zoning and land use regulations can pose barriers.
Form-based codes may limit factors of negoti-ation.
Extensive zoning requirements that add costs to the develop-ment process.
Strict zoning and design standards can limit the success of a develop-ment.
The housing market can create additional obstacles.
More funding and subsides are needed to make afford-able housing a reality.
Table Four: Interview Matrix
44 Spring 2015
Table Five: Case Study MatrixCity of Boulder, CO
Montomgery County, MD
City of Montgomery, AL
(2006, 2007)
City of Denver, CO (2010)
Type of Zoning Code Conventional ZoningRegional/Optional Form-Based
City-wide Parallel Form-based Code and mandatory form-based for Downtown
City-wide hybrid form-based code, context based
Housing Ordinance (Mandatory) 2002 First created in 1974None, Affordable Housing Fund
2002 (amended in 2010)
Defining Affordable 80% to 100% AMI 40%-80% AMI 60% AMI
50%-95% for high-costs developments and 50%-80% AMI for stan-dard-costs developments
Regulations25% of all housing units be permanently affordable
12.5% of develop-ment of 20 or more units is required to be affordable.
None
Master plan require-ments: (200 units), 30 or more units must have 10% affordable
Incentives/developer options
"in-lieu", on-site and off-site unit develop-ment, density and height bonuses.
22% increase in den-sity determined by number of afford-able housing units proposed.
Local and Federal Funding Programs, Density Bonus Pro-gram
Density and parking bo-nuses, and pay "in lieu."
Units created
Between 2000-2010, 380 units, a total of 1,57 rental units and 822 ownership units.
The ordinance has created 10,300 units, only 400 currently under the ordinance
UndeterminedCreated units from amended ordinance is still to be determined
Affordable Housing in Code
Zone districts have been created for mobile homes and affordable housing.
Lists a required per-centage of units
Diversity of housing types regulated by zone districts.
Density and parking bonuses based on afford-able units proposed.
Spring 2015 45
City of Miami, Fl (2010) Arlington County, VA
Mandatory city-wide Smart-Code
Columbia Pike Neigh-borhood, Neighborhood form-based code
Affordable Housing Special Benefit Program
Arlington County Zoning Ordinance 2005 (amend-ed 2013)
80% AMI is considered low income and 120% is consid-ered moderate income.
40%-80% of AMI
Must be affordable for 30 years. 80% of units pro-posed are required to be built to 60% and below. Also require mixed income developments.
20% to 30% of new net housing, affordability for 60 years
Cash contributions to the city's Affordable Housing Fund, increased FLR, height and density.
Special Affordable Hous-ing Protection District, Transfer Development Rights, Density/height exceptions, and parking incentives
Undetermined
6,622 Committed Afford-able Housing Units (14% of the county's housing stock)
For each sq. ft. of affordable housing created on-site, the developer is allowed two sq. ft. up to the bonus height and density. Off site is al-lowed equivalent sq. footage.
Incentives are listed direct in the form-based code.
